Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

It's not California's debts, unless you mean the individual people living there. People just don't support a team there. They've already lost three teams (Rams, Raiders, Chargers). Just because it's a big market doesn't mean the market wants what you (well, they, but in general terms...) are selling.

Also, I'm against expansion. They'd have to break up the entirety of the current divisional structure, or else make things uneven unless they brought in 8 new teams, giving each conference a new division or each division a 5th team.

I usually don't mind expansion since the process (naming, logo & jersey unveiling, expansion draft, NFL Draft, etc.) tickles me to death, but I'm wary of it for a couple of well-known reasons:

1. LA hasn't supported pro football in past attempts. UCLA and USC football have always done great and thrived (in terms of attendence), and people keep assuming that'll translate to the NFL. Raider games were so bad that they were regularly blacked-out. Granted, there are a couple of reasons that won't be a factor should they this time. Back in the 80s and early 90s, the neighborhood that held the LA Coliseum was considered dangerous and crime-ridden. It's has been cleaned up and is safe now. I also imagine that playing in a new stadium in a generation where football is the top dog in America instead of sharing the LA Coliseum with USC may help a bit, but I'm still a bit skeptical. And would consider not one team, but two, with both possibly in the LA area. The only other consideration would be the Alamodome in San Antonio. That's a big jump.

2. The divisions. The NFL have the perfect set-up with 32 teams in 8 divisions. Adding two teams would fuck that all up. It's that simple.

2. The divisions. The NFL have the perfect set-up with 32 teams in 8 divisions. Adding two teams would fuck that all up. It's that simple.

Personally despite the expansion debate, I always thought it was cheap that the 2nd seed gets a bye...So if by the football gods, 8 more teams were added, atleast you could have 1 more playoff team face the 2 seed with the only team getting a bye being the #1 Seeds...Not likely but interesting...

Personally despite the expansion debate, I always thought it was cheap that the 2nd seed gets a bye...So if by the football gods, 8 more teams were added, atleast you could have 1 more playoff team face the 2 seed with the only team getting a bye being the #1 Seeds...Not likely but interesting...

Why is it cheap that the second team gets a bye? It's not easy being one of the top two teams in either conference. If New Orleans got that bye this past postseason would this comment exist?

__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心，你的命運。

^This has nothing to do with the Saints, I've always felt like the #2 seed gets an easy ride...I mean you weren't #1...

#1 should have the advantage, everyone else should have to fight it out...Make that 2 seed play an opening weekend game...In all likelihood they get 2 home games instead of 1...I've just never understood why a #2 seed gets basically the same advantage as #1...True, your 49ners would have perhaps got tripped up allowing the scariest team in the NFC to go to the Superbowl and throttle New England, but that has nothing to do with my thinking here...

^This has nothing to do with the Saints, I've always felt like the #2 seed gets an easy ride...I mean you weren't #1...

#1 should have the advantage, everyone else should have to fight it out...Make that 2 seed play an opening weekend game...In all likelihood they get 2 home games instead of 1...I've just never understood why a #2 seed gets basically the same advantage as #1...True, your 49ners would have perhaps got tripped up allowing the scariest team in the NFC to go to the Superbowl and throttle New England, but that has nothing to do with my thinking here...

I know the 49ers weren't number one, but I wasn't the one lobbying for a change. Being one of the top two teams in the conference isn't an easy thing to do. It's not farfetched to have those two teams be rewarded.

Oh and New Orleans scariest team in the NFL? More like overrated. Maybe when they can win on the road in January.

__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心，你的命運。

And you still lost. End of story. Wasn't this supposed to be the best offense of all time or something? GTFO. Saints are 0-3 on the road in the playoffs in the Brees era. Dome teams outside in January just don't win games very often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

^2 more games on wildcard weekend...7seed plays #2 who doesn't get a bye...Not complicated...If #2 wins they play higher seed next week as usual...

Six games over the weekend during wild card is way too much. And then you have two weeks straight with a combined total of four games. That's retarded. Why the hell would you cram pack wild card weekend? Because having the number one seed in the conference is leaps and bounds better than the number two seed when there are sixteen teams per conference? If you went by this logic, New Orleans and San Francisco would have been resting their starters for probably two straight weeks knowing that Green Bay had everything sealed up for the most part. Would have made for some pretty boring football the last couple of games. In any given season you could potentially have 10 teams out of 12 not giving a crap the last two weeks of the season because the number one seed is clinched.

You really haven't given a good reason why the bye week for the number two seed should be eliminated. There are more negatives to gain than positives.

__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心，你的命運。

But in any event, why can't the #2 seed do what the #3 seed does? Given the parity in the league it'll be a situational year-by-year basis in terms of whether teams chose to rest starters or what not like it already is...With divisional games in the last 2 weeks now (Thanx to a guy much more accomplished than you called Roger Godell) playoff implications will still run rampant...

Quote:

Why the hell would you cram pack wild card weekend?

Do you know nothing of football television ratings? They're going to put NFL games on Thursday every week starting week 3 next season...Are you living on a Bay Area cable car? People will watch nfl Football with their eyes on fire...3 games on saturday, 3 games on Sunday (Early game, afternoon game, night game)...You'll watch that $hit just like all of America will watch that $hit, like they do on thanksgiving and Xmas...

Quote:

Wasn't this supposed to be the best offense of all time or something?

We were...We put 32 points up on the greatest top 10 picks for sucking for a decade defense in the NFL, and did it without 4 offensive starters (Moore, Thomas, Meachem, Ingram)...We basically did it with 2 effin players (Graham and Sproles) and spotted yall 5 turnovers...Jesus Jenkins what high level team would even be in question of losing with that in their hip pocket?

It ain't the first time the better team somehow lost a playoff game, it won't be the last...1 catch by 1 WR for 3 yards in that game by the niners (Tebow laffs at that)...The 49ners are boring as f**k to watch, that's why most of America was bummed out when we lost, but them the breaks...Every dog has it's day, and for Alex Smith that was his first EVER f**king day...but alas, a $hitcan loss the following week to team we put 50 on, eased my soul a bit...

We were...We put 32 points up on the greatest top 10 picks for sucking for a decade defense in the NFL, and did it without 4 offensive starters (Moore, Thomas, Meachem, Ingram)...We basically did it with 2 effin players (Graham and Sproles) and spotted yall 5 turnovers...[B]Jesus Jenkins what high level team would even be in question of losing with that in their hip pocket?

Meh. The 85 Bears would put that team on a shutout in a playoff game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

But in any event, why can't the #2 seed do what the #3 seed does?

For a 12-team playoff system...

If #6 plays #2... that leaves 3-other teams #3-#5. How the heck are you going to pair them off? For 12-team, it's impossible.

Of course, it can work out with a 14-team system at this stage. Here, #1 gets the bye-week. #2 vs #7. #3 vs #6. #4 vs #5. Then the lowest seeded team winning out of wild card gets to play #1 the following week. So, it could work out here. Now, while twice we've seen #6's going all the way to the Super Bowl and win... I'd have to wonder how a #7 would fare.

But here's the thing. With 32 teams - can the playoffs expand to 14? No. If the league expands to 34, is a 14-team playoff system viable? That. I don't know.

But in any event, why can't the #2 seed do what the #3 seed does? Given the parity in the league it'll be a situational year-by-year basis in terms of whether teams chose to rest starters or what not like it already is...With divisional games in the last 2 weeks now (Thanx to a guy much more accomplished than you called Roger Godell) playoff implications will still run rampant...

Hello anybody home? Think McFly, think. Reread your own response. You said you ALWAYS thought the second seeded team getting a bye was dumb. That has nothing to do with an eight team expansion.

Why can't the number two seed do what the number one seed does? And just like that, theory debunked. Doesn't really matter. The NFL isn't going to change it so you can just keep bitching about that aspect of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

Do you know nothing of football television ratings? They're going to put NFL games on Thursday every week starting week 3 next season...Are you living on a Bay Area cable car? People will watch nfl Football with their eyes on fire...3 games on saturday, 3 games on Sunday (Early game, afternoon game, night game)...You'll watch that $hit just like all of America will watch that $hit, like they do on thanksgiving and Xmas...

Again, you aren't even giving a reason why it should be changed in the first place or how it benefits the NFL. Yeah I'm sure people will be happy about having to further work around their schedule to watch three games instead of two on one weekend in the playoffs. You're still bitter that the Saints lost out on the number 2 seed. That's the only reason you want it changed. This doesn't benefit the NFL at all, which is why this idea was never even proposed by anyone ever. Except a bitter Saints fan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

We were...We put 32 points up on the greatest top 10 picks for sucking for a decade defense in the NFL, and did it without 4 offensive starters (Moore, Thomas, Meachem, Ingram)...We basically did it with 2 effin players (Graham and Sproles) and spotted yall 5 turnovers...Jesus Jenkins what high level team would even be in question of losing with that in their hip pocket?

It ain't the first time the better team somehow lost a playoff game, it won't be the last...1 catch by 1 WR for 3 yards in that game by the niners (Tebow laffs at that)...The 49ners are boring as f**k to watch, that's why most of America was bummed out when we lost, but them the breaks...Every dog has it's day, and for Alex Smith that was his first EVER f**king day...but alas, a $hitcan loss the following week to team we put 50 on, eased my soul a bit...

I guess that makes the 49ers defense the best ever since you guys got stopped. Nevermind that playing 12 games out of 16 in domes can inflate stats. Not surprising the outcome. Again, dome teams struggle outdoors in January. FACT. Not surprising the Saints lost outside, just like they did to the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks the previous season LMFAO. I'm still rollin at Porter getting plowed by Lynch on that run.

You say the 49ers are boring to watch, and I say the Saints are overrated unless they are in a dome. Doesn't matter in the end though. 49ers beat the Saints.

Oh and America was bummed? Right since when does the majority of America actually know what is good and bad for the NFL? There is a reason why we keep getting people voted in the Pro Bowl that don't deserve to go. Never use America as your defense for backing up a point in football related conversation. This newer generation of fantasy football idiots know nothing about the integrity of the game, let alone what's good for it. All they care about is offensive scoring and sportscenter highlights. Most kids in high school probably won't even know who Jerry Rice was in a few years.

You said you ALWAYS thought the second seeded team getting a bye was dumb. That has nothing to do with an eight team expansion.

I said I've always thought it was cheap to just let the #2 seed ride it out for a week...Not that it was inherently dumb....And I was never trying to make a strong argument for it, just saying, I don't know, a special needs Yajirobi could come up with the realization that it wouldn't be that hard to make this happen (OMG 3 games on one day, my word! :/ )...Especially in an expansion scenario...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingRightness

So if by the football gods, 8 more teams were added, atleast you could have 1 more playoff team face the 2 seed with the only team getting a bye being the #1 Seeds...Not likely but interesting...

The expansion point was the initial premise for discussion, not being pi$$ed off that an overachieving team from a $hit subdivision got the #2 seed...

Quote:

Why can't the number two seed do what the number one seed does? And just like that, theory debunked. Doesn't really matter. The NFL isn't going to change it so you can just keep bitching about that aspect of it.

Ya never know, Roger Godell seems to be a bit partial to bitching...Mostly his own...he's not scared to change rules on a whim...

As for the rest, the 49ners ARE boring to watch (You do watch them right? ugh)...Throw the f**king ball to that guy flexed out on the edge, I think he's called a Wide receiver...Do you know what a WR is 49ners fan^^?

America wanted to see functional, cool looking aerial football, not hope and a prayer $hit...But as i said before, have the spoils of victory...You guys won fair and square...Watching your team play is still analogous to watching a turd squirm, but be proud of that turd...Throw a 3 yard pass to that turd as Bill Walsh's ghosthand stops fappin it...

Quote:

Oh and America was bummed? Right since when does the majority of America actually know what is good and bad for the NFL? There is a reason why we keep getting people voted in the Pro Bowl that don't deserve to go. Never use America as your defense for backing up a point in football related conversation. This newer generation of fantasy football idiots know nothing about the integrity of the game, let alone what's good for it. All they care about is offensive scoring and sportscenter highlights. Most kids in high school probably won't even know who Jerry Rice was in a few years.

Please, go OCCUPY CITY HALL with all of that misplaced energy...You were rockin' Keds sipping purplesaurus rex juiceboxes last time San Fran was relevant, talking about "These kids today with their fantasy football, oh and get off my lawn"...You're 24 bro, it's called compartmentalizing...It's easy to do, it's kinda like how I know more about pro football than you will ever understand yet I love playing fantasy football, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive...You should give it a try, but here's a protip: *whispering* Avoid San Fran WR's until the not-a-chance in hell-round...Ssssh, everybody gets one...

America wanted to see functional, cool looking aerial football, not hope and a prayer $hit...But as i said before, have the spoils of victory...You guys won fair and square...Watching your team play is still analogous to watching a turd squirm, but be proud of that turd...Throw a 3 yard pass to that turd as Bill Walsh's ghosthand stops fappin it...

Wow. Then you'd hate football before 2000... when reaching the 20's was considered a high scoring game.

I said I've always thought it was cheap to just let the #2 seed ride it out for a week...Not that it was inherently dumb....And I was never trying to make a strong argument for it, just saying, I don't know, a special needs Yajirobi could come up with the realization that it wouldn't be that hard to make this happen (OMG 3 games on one day, my word! :/ )...Especially in an expansion scenario...

Bottom line is that it's not happening because it's a dumb idea that serves no purpose and isn't going to make the NFL better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

The expansion point was the initial premise for discussion, not being pi$$ed off that an overachieving team from a $hit subdivision got the #2 seed...

And I didn't say it wasn't. I was talking about your quote about how you've always hated the number two seed getting a bye. Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt you'd be saying this if the Saints got that bye this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

Ya never know, Roger Godell seems to be a bit partial to bitching...Mostly his own...he's not scared to change rules on a whim...

As for the rest, the 49ners ARE boring to watch (You do watch them right? ugh)...Throw the f**king ball to that guy flexed out on the edge, I think he's called a Wide receiver...Do you know what a WR is 49ners fan^^?

Roger Goddell changes the rules for money purposes. And safety reasons. Having six games on wild card weekend and two the following week for the divisional isn't going to generate more revenue for the NFL. Smart and dumb fans alike haven't been bitching about this since, like, ever. Which is why it hasn't even been considered a possibility, by anyone. Just you for no good reason at all. More than likely it will just cause more lackluster play in the final weeks of the season than we already have now, which is enough. Instead people not giving a shit about week 17, they won't give a shit about weeks 16 and 17 when the bye is wrapped up for one team in each conference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

America wanted to see functional, cool looking aerial football, not hope and a prayer $hit...But as i said before, have the spoils of victory...You guys won fair and square...Watching your team play is still analogous to watching a turd squirm, but be proud of that turd...Throw a 3 yard pass to that turd as Bill Walsh's ghosthand stops fappin it...

And who the hell cares what America wants? If they want to see that kind of football watch the Arena league. There is an aspect of football called defense. Maybe you've heard of it as a Saints fan. Try making a tackle every once in a while. Seriously no one on that Saints defense scares anyone. You better hope Spagnolo can clean up the mess in the Bayou, cause it dun stink on D.

Yeah and praying and hoping really gets you to 13-3 ROFL. We just win games. We don't need a Harlem Globetrotter offense that can't win games in the playoffs on grass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

Please, go OCCUPY CITY HALL with all of that misplaced energy...You were rockin' Keds sipping purplesaurus rex juiceboxes last time San Fran was relevant, talking about "These kids today with their fantasy football, oh and get off my lawn"...You're 24 bro, it's called compartmentalizing...It's easy to do, it's kinda like how I know more about pro football than you will ever understand yet I love playing fantasy football, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive...You should give it a try, but here's a protip: *whispering* Avoid San Fran WR's until the not-a-chance in hell-round...Ssssh, everybody gets one...

The last time the 49ers were relevant I was in high school. A far cry from your terrible attempt to reference relevancy on an NFL franchise. Yes I'm 24, and unlike most fans I actually study the history of the NFL (I even watch original broadcasted games, the ones I can get my hands on) and know the integrity the game had even just 10 to 15 years ago is different today.

Oh and when where the Saints relevant before 2006? Oh yeah never. Don't know how old you are, but whether you were around to see Archie Manning get whacked on every down or Aaron Brooks throwing backwards passes, you really have zero room to talk about relevancy when your team is the Saints. One Lombardi trophy and you want to waltz around with your junk out? It's about time your franchise got off the damn doormat. Next time don't take nearly 40 years.

You know more about pro football? Maybe you do. Maybe you don't.

Funny statement coming from the guy who actually took the Pro Bowl seriously. GTFO with that garbage. Being alive for more years doesn't mean you actually have more knowledge about a certain subject. So you can throw the age angle out in your next response. Hell, if I didn't have my age listed by the avatar you'd be an arm and a leg short of the game you try and spit. Not like that game ever holds any water though anyways.

WHO DAT GOT IT BETTER THAN US!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Wow. Then you'd hate football before 2000... when reaching the 20's was considered a high scoring game.

Well if you are a Saints fan you probably hated football before 2000. Before that season the Saints had literally won zero playoff games since their inception in 1967. Zero.

__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
永遠不要失去信心，你的命運。